GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L10310, doi:10.
1029/2012GL051605, 2012
Quantifying volcanic ash dispersal and impact of the Campanian
Ignimbrite super-eruption
A. Costa,1,2 A. Folch,3 G. Macedonio,2 B. Giaccio,4 R. Isaia,2 and V. C. Smith5
Received 5 March 2012; revised 20 March 2012; accepted 20 March 2012; published 30 May 2012.
[1] We apply a novel computational approach to assess, for
the first time, volcanic ash dispersal during the Campanian
Ignimbrite (Italy) super-eruption providing insights into
eruption dynamics and the impact of this gigantic event.
The method uses a 3D time-dependent computational ash
dispersion model, a set of wind fields, and more than 100
thickness measurements of the CI tephra deposit. Results
reveal that the CI eruption dispersed 250–300 km3 of ash
over 3.7 million km2. The injection of such a large
quantity of ash (and volatiles) into the atmosphere would
have caused a volcanic winter during the Heinrich Event 4,
the coldest and driest climatic episode of the Last Glacial
period. Fluorine-bearing leachate from the volcanic ash and
acid rain would have further affected food sources and
severely impacted Late Middle-Early Upper Paleolithic
groups in Southern and Eastern Europe. Citation: Costa, A.,
A. Folch, G. Macedonio, B. Giaccio, R. Isaia, and V. C. Smith
(2012), Quantifying volcanic ash dispersal and impact of the Cam-
panian Ignimbrite super-eruption, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39,
L10310, doi:10.1029/2012GL051605.
1. Introduction
[2] The 39 ka Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) caldera-
forming super-eruption is the largest volcanic eruption in
Europe in the last 200 kyrs [Fedele et al., 2003; Sparks
et al., 2005]. Enormous amounts of volcanic aerosols are
injected into the stratosphere during these events, affecting
regional and possibly global climate [Fedele et al., 2007].
The widely dispersed ash fall deposit from this super-
eruption provides geoscientists with important temporal and
stratigraphic markers that are invaluable in correlating and
establishing the chronology of archaeological and paleocli-
mate archives [Pyle et al., 2006; Giaccio et al., 2008].
However, the ultimate distribution of the tephra deposit and
therefore, erupted volume estimations [Pyle et al., 2006;
1
Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading,
Reading, UK.
2
Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, sezione “Osservatorio
Vesuviano,” Napoli, Italy.
3
Barcelona Supercomputing Center - Centro Nacional de
Supercomputación, Barcelona, Spain.
4
Istituto di Geologia Ambientale e Geoingegneria, CNR, Rome, Italy.
5
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art,
University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Corresponding author: A. Costa, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e
Vulcanologia, sezione “Osservatorio Vesuviano,” Via Diocleziano 328,
I-80124 Napoli, Italy. (antonio.costa@ov.ingv.it)
Copyright 2012 by the American Geophysical Union.
0094-8276/12/2012GL051605
L10310
Fedele et al., 2008] remain poorly constrained, therefore the
impacts of the eruption on a continental scale could not
be assessed. Here we use a novel method to quantify and
reproduce the CI tephra deposit, applying a computational
ash dispersion model combined with the analysis of a set of
wind fields, and more than 100 thickness measurements of
the CI tephra deposit.
[3] Modelling distal dispersal of tephra fallout from the
most explosive eruptions on Earth is very challenging. Dis-
persal models are the only way to accurately constrain the
volume of material ejected and gain further insight into
plume dynamics during these gigantic events. Previous
models typically considered a homogeneous wind profile
derived from best fitting deposit measurements, but this
simplification is inadequate to determine ash dispersal in
distal regions, especially in presence of complex wind pat-
terns. Winds largely control dispersal, but the ash driven into
the atmosphere is so widespread that the meteorological
conditions over the entire area for the whole duration of the
eruption need to be considered, and this is not available for
past eruptions. Moreover, accurate estimation of tephra
volumes from deposit thinning in very distal regions is almost
impossible, as isopachs cannot be constructed because out-
crops are too scarce [Rose and Durant, 2009]. For these
reasons, tephra volume estimates for large eruptions, and
especially super-eruptions are poorly constrained [Self,
2006]. Most of the material erupted during the CI eruption
was deposited by pyroclastic density currents [Fisher et al.,
1993], and thus co-ignimbrite ash is likely to constitute
proportion of the distal fallout. Previous estimates of the
bulk-volume of the distal ash fallout range from 70 to
120 km3, obtained from deposit thinning [Pyle et al., 2006;
Perrotta and Scarpati, 2003]. Constraining volume and
dispersal has implications for volcanic hazards and eruption
dynamics, and for paleoenvironmental research, as ash
layers of these large eruptions are used to synchronize
paleoclimate records [e.g., Lowe, 2011].
2. Computational Methodology and Input Data
[4] We use a new method to determine the CI tephra dis-
persal through to the ultra-distal regions (up to 2500 km
from the volcano), and assess the volume of this widespread
tephra deposit. A set of fully 3D time-dependent meteoro-
logical fields across the region, and a range of volcanologi-
cal input parameters (erupted mass, mass eruption rate,
column height, and total grain size distribution) were used in
several hundreds of simulations of the FALL3D ash dis-
persal model [Costa et al., 2006; Folch et al., 2010]. Opti-
mal values were obtained by best fitting measured CI deposit
thicknesses over the entire dispersal area (113 locations,
see Table S1 in the auxiliary material) and minimizing
1 of 5
L10310 COSTA ET AL.: ASH DISPERSAL FROM A SUPER-ERUPTION L10310

Table 1. Best Fit Results of Tephra Dispersal Inversion for the CI Super-eruption
Modelled Dispersion Parameters Explored Range CI-173Ra CI-330a
Tephra volume (kg) Calculated 2.5  1014 3.0  1014
Tephra volume (km3) Calculated 250 300
Duration (days) 1–5 4.5 2
Mass eruption rate of ash fallout only (kg/s) 107–1010 6.4  108 1.7  109
TGSD-maxima m1/m2 (in F-unit)b 0–3/6–9 6.5/2.0 6.5/2.0
TGSD-variances s1/s2 (in F-unit)b 1–3/1–3 2.0/2.0 2.0/2.0
Column height (km) 20–50 37.5 40
Suzuki coefficient ( )c 2–9 9 9
Density of aggregates (kg/m3)d 100–600 300 300
Diameter of aggregates (mm)d Assumed 200 200
Average deposit density (kg m 3) Assumed 1000 1000
Correlation coefficiente Calculated 0.77 0.72
T-Teste Calculated 0.65 0.98
D2-valuee Calculated 0.11 0.16
a
These scenarios are the combination of meteorological fields and volcanological parameters that best reproduce the observed deposits. CI-173R
corresponds to the meteorological synoptic fields from 5 to 12 December 1991 rotated 7 anti-clockwise around the vent; and CI-330 corresponds to the
meteorological synoptic fields from 5 to 12 November 1995.
b
Total grain-size distribution (TGSD) is assumed to be bi-Gaussian, with maxima at m1 and m2 and corresponding variances s1 and s2; particle diameters
d are expressed in F-unit where d(mm) =2 F.
c
The eruption source is described in a purely empirical way in order to reproduce the optimal geometrical shape of the deposits using the Suzuki
distribution [Suzuki, 1983; Pfeiffer et al., 2005]. In this the eruption column acts as a vertical line source (simplification only valid in distal areas).
All thickness measurements <50 km from the vent were excluded.
d
Determined using an aggregation model similar to that of Cornell et al. [1983].
e
Relative mean square error based on the differences between log(measured thickness) and log(simulated thickness).

the deviation of regression, as in Folch et al. [2010].1
This computationally intensive methodology allowed us to
reconstruct the volume and tephra dispersal from the CI
super-eruption, and constrain key eruption parameters.
[5] A set of five hundred synoptic meteorological fields
was generated using 15 years of European Centre for Medium-
Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), ERA-40 reanalysis
obtained from the data server (http://www.ecmwf.int/
reasearch/era/do/get/era-interim). The ERA-40 reanalysis
archive contains data in six-hour intervals and at 23 pressure
levels, ranging from 1000 to 1 hPa, and at a 2.5 horizontal
resolution. Our methodology assumes that this collection of
modern winds fields can statistically represent those at the
time of the CI eruption (39 kyrs BP). Meteorological fields
were interpolated to the FALL3D computational mesh with a
3 hour interval using a linear temporal interpolation, and a
bilinear spatial interpolation.
[6] The distribution of mass within the column was cal-
culated using an empirical parameterization [Suzuki, 1983;
Pfeiffer et al., 2005]. In order to account for aggregation
processes (influencing fine ash dispersal), an aggregation
model similar to that of Cornell et al. [1983] was used. The
aggregation model assumes that 50% of the 63–44 mm ash,
75% of the 44–31 mm ash, and 95% of the less than 31 mm
ash fell as aggregated particles with a diameter of 200 mm.
More sophisticated aggregation models [e.g., Costa et al.,
2010] could not be employed to solve this kind of inverse
problem as they are too computationally intensive.
3. Results
[7] The volcanological and meteorological parameters that
best fit the observed deposits (thickness measurements in
Table S1 in the auxiliary material) are reported in Table 1.
[8] The best fit results from the model indicate that the
column height was 37–40 km, the mass eruption rate
1
Auxiliary materials are available in the HTML. doi:10.1029/
2012GL051605.
associated with the ash fallout was 6.4  108 1.7  109 kg/s,
the effective ash-aggregate density was of 300 kg/m3, and
the eruption lasted 2–4 days. The total amount of fallout
material deposited was 2.5  1014 3.0  1014 kg, which
equates to 250–300 km3 of tephra or 104–125 km3 of magma
(dense rock equivalent, DRE). Our calculated tephra fall
volumes are 2–3 times larger than previous estimations
[e.g., Pyle et al., 2006; Perrotta and Scarpati, 2003].
Considering volume estimations of 180–380 km3 for the
proximal pyroclastic density current deposits [Pyle et al.,
2006], the total bulk volume of the CI eruption is 430–
680 km3 (180–280 km3 DRE).
[9] The best-fit meteorological fields correspond to those
that typically prevail in current autumn-winter periods (more
detail provided in the auxiliary material).
[10] The correlation coefficient between log(measured
thickness) and log(simulated thickness) is 0.77 (0.72 for
the second best meteorological field), and the T-Test value
is 0.65 (0.98 for the second best meteorological field). The
modeled results are in general agreement with the measured
thicknesses (i.e., most simulated thicknesses are between 1/5
and 5 times the observed thicknesses; see auxiliary material),
the relative mean error, D, is approximately 0.3 log-units,
which implies there is about a factor 2 error on the estima-
tion of the mass, that is similar to typical uncertainties
associated with classical techniques [Bonadonna and Costa,
2012].
[11] The eruption column height, duration, and total grain
size distribution are consistent with those estimated by field
and laboratory analyses [Rosi et al., 1999]. Furthermore, the
simulated grain-size at Kostenki, in the ultra-distal region, is
similar to the measured values [Pyle et al., 2006].
[12] The column shape parameter (mass distribution
within the column) was also determined from the inversion,
which gives a high Suzuki coefficient (A = 9). This high
value is different from those characterizing a sustained
Plinian column, which typically has A ≈ 4 with the maxi-
mum of the mass distribution at ¾ of the column height

2 of 5
L10310 COSTA ET AL.: ASH DISPERSAL FROM A SUPER-ERUPTION L10310

Figure 1. Isopach maps showing CI ash thickness (intervals 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 cm), as modeled using FALL3D.
Red dots are points where the tephra thickness was measured (reported in Table S1 in the auxiliary material). The best
fit simulations of the ash dispersal are displayed, (a) CI-173R and (b) CI-330 (see Table 1 for the parameters).

[Pfeiffer et al., 2005; Sparks, 1986]. This may indicate that
ash fallout was mainly from a co-ignimbrite cloud. The
buoyant elutriated mixture of ash and volatiles rising off
the pyroclastic flows would have formed the co-ignimbrite
column, which would have been displaced from the vent
[Woods and Wohletz, 1991]. The actual shape and extent of
the fallout source is not relevant to the model as only the
deposits >50 km the vent were considered.
[13] The field evidence shows that the eruption started
with a Plinian phase followed by large pyroclastic density
currents [Wulf et al., 2004] that scaled topographic highs
more than 70 km from the vent [Fisher et al., 1993]. The
column collapse that generated the widespread ignimbrite
was most likely due to an increase of the mass eruption rate
[Woods and Bower, 1995]. The actual mass eruption rate
(MER) for the ignimbrite phase must have been much larger
than 109 kg/s, the value we estimated to be associated to
the fallout only (Table 1). As the eruption column was 37–
40 km, the actual MER of the coignimbrite phase, in accord
with the Woods and Wohletz [1991] model, must have been
one order of magnitude larger, i.e., 1010 kg/s.
[14] The simulated best-fit deposits are shown in Figure 1
and for the first time there are estimates of the shape of the
dispersal area and extent of the ultra-distal deposits.
4. Implications and Discussion
[15] Using the sulphur content of the total amount of CI
magma erupted, derived from melt inclusions and matrix
glass [up to 800 pm SO3; Signorelli et al., 2001], and the
magma volumes from the model presented, the amount of
SO2 emitted during the CI eruption was calculated [after Self
et al., 2004] to be 450 Tg (200 Tg of this would have
been released into the stratosphere). This amount is compa-
rable to those of other super-eruptions, namely Toba and
Bishop Tuff [Scaillet et al., 2003]. Numerical simulations
performed to study the climate response to large volcanic
eruptions [Timmreck et al., 2009] suggest that the hemi-
spheric cooling induced by the volumes of CI aerosols
would have been 1–2 C, and lasted 2–3 years. Even this
short-term cooling would have been enough to cause severe
ecosystem alteration [Rampino, 2002].
[16] Using the total magma volume and the melt compo-
sition [500–5500 ppm F; Pappalardo et al., 2008] we esti-
mated that 100–300 Tg of fluorine was originally dissolved
in the melt, and that once the ash was deposited this fluorine
would have leached out into the soil [Cronin et al., 2003]. In
addition, large amounts of chlorine and fluorine, along with
sulphur dioxide, would have been ejected into the tropo-
sphere and may have produced intense acid rain in the area
downwind of the volcano.
[17] Volcanic ash deposition would have affected eco-
systems by chemical and physical changes in the water of
lakes and rivers, acid rains, and by the partial or total
destruction of forests and grasslands [Delmelle, 2003;
Kockum et al., 2006]. Consumption of the ash covered
vegetation would have resulted in fluorosis [Cronin et al.,
2003] associated with fluorine leaching from the silicate
glass, which damages eyes, teeth, bones and internal organs
of ruminants and other herbivores, such as aurochs, bison,
elk, mammoths and horses. Acid rains, water contamination,
destruction of food sources and ash inhalation would have
had a great impact on Early Upper Paleolithic communities
in the region [Fedele et al., 2008]. As most of the East
Mediterranean area, Balkans, and part of Caucasus region
were covered by more than 5 mm of ash (Figures 1 and 2)
the ecosystems would have been greatly affected. The
recovery of vegetation would have taken from one year up to
decades (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/ash/agric/index.html, and
references therein).

3 of 5
L10310 COSTA ET AL.: ASH DISPERSAL FROM A SUPER-ERUPTION
Figure 2. Distribution of the archeological sites containing
CI tephra (yellow circles from Fedele et al. [2003] superim-
posed on a map showing the simulated mean winter tempera-
ture isolines in Europe during the relatively warm interstadial
phase (40 ka) before the CI eruption (modified from van
Andel [2002]). The 0.5 cm isopach of the simulation CI173R
is also highlighted as a shaded area.
[18] The CI super-eruption occurred just after the onset of
Heinrich Event 4, HE4 [Fedele et al., 2003, 2008; Müller
et al., 2011], which is characterised by a very cold and dry
climate. This change in Northern Hemisphere climate,
combined with the volcanic winter, would have severely
impacted Early Upper Paleolithic groups within Europe
[Fedele et al., 2003, 2008]. However, it is difficult to
quantify the actual impact of the CI eruption on popula-
tions living in the region (for an extensive description of the
HE4-CI combined event see Fedele et al. [2008]). Never-
theless, the eruption marks distinct bio-cultural changes in
Western Eurasia, termed the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic
transition. Archaeological sites covered by the CI ash (see
Figure 2) often have clear post-eruption sterile layers indi-
cating that occupation in the region changed, even at sites
characterized by millennial-long continuous occupation
[Fedele et al., 2008; Giaccio et al., 2008; Pinhasi et al.,
2011]. In addition, the youngest Neanderthal fossils in the
Caucases region are older than 40–39 ka [Pinhasi et al.,
2011], allowing the possibility that combination of the
eruption and HE4 led to a demographic crash in the region.
Some Early Upper Palaeolithic lithic industries and fossil
remains indicate that modern humans may also have been in
the region prior to the eruption, but populations appear to
have been limited [Anikovich et al., 2007]. Once the large
areas that would have been inhospitable for years had
recovered they were colonised by modern humans, as
marked by a fully developed Upper Palaeolithic culture. Our
reassessment of the CI eruption parameters and dispersal
provides support for theory that the combination of HE4 and
the CI eruption drove ecological changes in European Late
Pleistocene and affected biocultural processes [Fedele et al.,
2008; Golovanova et al., 2010].
[19] In summary, the application of a novel computational
method constrains the magnitude and ash dispersal of the
4 of 5
L10310
CI super-eruption. The estimation of the key eruption
parameters, such as volume, mass eruption rate, duration,
column height, total grain-size distribution, and the tephra
dispersal footprint have important implications for impact
assessment of such catastrophic events. The CI eruption
provides an ideal case study for assessing the widespread
impact of large eruptions on climate, ecosystems and human
populations. Results of this method agree well with the
available observations of the ash dispersal, indicating that
the model is robust. Since computational power is ever
increasing, this may become a standard method to constrain
the main eruption parameters of past super-eruptions, which
are key to understanding eruption dynamics, and the impacts
of these kinds of events.
[20] Acknowledgments. We wish to thank E. Bellucci Sessa (Labora-
tory of Geomatics and Cartography, INGV-OV) for her help in compiling
the dataset for Table S1. Meteorological data (ERA40) were provided by
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). S. Self,
R.S.J. Sparks, and S. Engwell are thanked for their very useful comments
on an earlier version of this paper. Finally we wish to thank S. Self and
an anonymous reviewer for their constructive reviews.
[21] The Editor thanks Stephen Self and an anonymous reviewer for
assisting in the evaluation of this paper.
References
Anikovich, M. V., et al. (2007), Early Upper Paleolithic in eastern Europe
and implications for the dispersal of modern humans, Science, 315,
223–226, doi:10.1126/science.1133376.
Bonadonna, C., and A. Costa (2012), Estimating the volume of tephra
deposits: A new simple strategy, Geology, doi:10.1130/G32769.1, in press.
Cornell, W., S. Carey, and H. Sigurdsson (1983), Computer simulation of
transport and deposition of Campanian Y-5 ash, J. Volcanol. Geotherm.
Res., 17, 89–109, doi:10.1016/0377-0273(83)90063-X.
Costa, A., G. Macedonio, and A. Folch (2006), A three-dimensional
Eulerian model for transport and deposition of volcanic ashes, Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett., 241(3–4), 634–647, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2005.11.019.
Costa, A., A. Folch, and G. Macedonio (2010), A model for wet aggrega-
tion of ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: 1. Theoretical formu-
lation, J. Geophys. Res., 115, B09201, doi:10.1029/2009JB007175.
Cronin, S. J., V. E. Neall, J. A. Lecointre, M. J. Hedley, and P. Loganathan
(2003), Environmental hazards of fluoride in volcanic ash: A case study
from Ruapehu volcano, New Zealand, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 121,
271–291, doi:10.1016/S0377-0273(02)00465-1.
Delmelle, P. (2003), Environmental impacts of tropospheric volcanic gas
plumes, Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ., 213, 381–399, doi:10.1144/
GSL.SP.2003.213.01.23.
Fedele, F. G., B. Giaccio, R. Isaia, and G. Orsi (2003), The Campanian
Ignimbrite eruption, Heinrich Event 4, and the Palaeolithic change in
Europe: A high-resolution investigation, in Volcanism and the Earth’s
Atmosphere, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 139, edited by A. Robock
and C. Oppenheimer, pp. 301–325, AGU, Washington D. C.
Fedele, F. G., B. Giaccio, R. Isaia, G. Orsi, M. Carroll, and B. Scaillet
(2007), The Campanian Ignimbrite factor: Towards a reappraisal of the
Middle to Upper Palaeolithic “Transition”, in Living Under the Shadow:
The Cultural Impacts of Volcanic Eruptions, One World Archaeol.,
vol. 53, edited by J. Grattan and R. Torrence, pp. 19–41, Left Coast,
Walnutt Creek, Calif.
Fedele, F. G., B. Giaccio, and I. Hajdas (2008), Timescales and cultural pro-
cess at 40,000 BP in the light of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption,
western Eurasia, J. Hum. Evol., 55, 834–857, doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.
2008.08.012.
Fisher, R. V., G. Orsi, M. Ort, and G. Heiken (1993), Mobility of a large-
volume pyroclastic flow—Emplacement of the Campanian Ignimbrite,
Italy, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 56(3), 205–220, doi:10.1016/0377-
0273(93)90017-L.
Folch, A., A. Costa, A. Durant, and G. Macedonio (2010), A model for wet
aggregation of ash particles in volcanic plumes and clouds: 2. Model
application, J. Geophys. Res., 115, B09202, doi:10.1029/2009JB007176.
Giaccio, B., R. Isaia, F. Fedele, E. Di Canzio, J. Hoffecker, A. Ronchitelli,
A. Sinitsyn, M. Anikovich, S. Lisitsyn, and V. Popov (2008), The Cam-
panian Ignimbrite and Codola tephra layers: Two temporal/stratigraphic
markers for the Early Upper Palaeolithic in southern Italy and eastern
Europe, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 177, 208–226, doi:10.1016/j.
jvolgeores.2007.10.007.
L10310 COSTA ET AL.: ASH DISPERSAL FROM A SUPER-ERUPTION
Golovanova, L. V., V. B. Doronichev, N. E. Cleghorn, M. A. Koulkova,
T. V. Sapelko, and M. S. Shackley (2010), Significance of ecological
factors in the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition, Curr. Anthropol.,
51(5), 655–691, doi:10.1086/656185.
Kockum, P. C. F., R. B. Herbert, and S. R. Gislason (2006), A diverse eco-
system response to volcanic aerosols, Chem. Geol., 231(1–2), 57–66,
doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.12.008.
Lowe, D. J. (2011), Tephrochronology and its application: A review, Quat.
Geochronol., 6, 107–153, doi:10.1016/j.quageo.2010.08.003.
Müller, U. C., J. Pross, P. C. Tzedakis, C. Gamble, U. Kotthoff,
G. Schmiedl, S. Wulf, and K. Christanis (2011), The role of climate in
the spread of modern humans into Europe, Quat. Sci. Rev., 30, 273–279,
doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.11.016.
Pappalardo, L., A. E. Ottolini, and G. Mastrolorenzo (2008), The Campa-
nian Ignimbrite (southern Italy) geochemical zoning: Insight on the gen-
eration of a super-eruption from catastrophic differentiation and fast
withdrawal, Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 156, 1–26, doi:10.1007/s00410-
007-0270-0.
Perrotta, A., and C. Scarpati (2003), Volume partition between the plinian
and co-ignimbrite air fall deposits of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption,
Mineral. Petrol., 79, 67–78, doi:10.1007/s00710-003-0002-8.
Pfeiffer, T., A. Costa, and G. Macedonio (2005), A model for the numerical
simulation of tephra fall deposits, J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 140,
273–294, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2004.09.001.
Pinhasi, R., T. F. G. Higham, L. V. Golovanova, and V. B. Doronichev
(2011), Revised age of late Neanderthal occupation and the end of the
Middle Paleolithic in the northern Caucasus, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U. S. A., 108, 8611–8616, doi:10.1073/pnas.1018938108.
Pyle, D. M., G. D. Ricketts, V. Margari, T. H. van Andel, A. A. Sinitsyn,
N. Praslov, and S. Lisitsyn (2006), Wide dispersal and deposition of distal
tephra during the Pleistocene “Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5” eruption, Italy,
Quat. Sci. Rev., 25, 2713–2728, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.06.008.
Rampino, M. R. (2002), Supereruptions as a threat to civilizations on Earth-
like planets, Icarus, 156, 562–569, doi:10.1006/icar.2001.6808.
Rose, W., and A. Durant (2009), Fine ash content of explosive eruptions,
J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 186, 32–39, doi:10.1016/j.jvolgeores.
2009.01.010.
Rosi, M., L. Vezzoli, A. Castelmenzano, and G. Grieco (1999), Plinian
pumice fall deposit of the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption (Phlegraean
Fields, Italy), J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res., 91, 179–198, doi:10.1016/
S0377-0273(99)00035-9.
5 of 5
L10310
Scaillet, B., J. F. Luhr, and M. R. Carroll (2003), Petrological and volcanolog-
ical constraints on volcanic sulfur emissions to the atmosphere, in Volca-
nism and the Earth’s Atmosphere, Geophys. Monogr. Ser., vol. 139,
edited by A. Robock and C. Oppenheimer, pp. 11–40, AGU, Washington
D. C.
Self, S. (2006), The effects and consequences of very large explosive volca-
nic eruptions, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A, 364, 2073–2097, doi:10.1098/
rsta.2006.1814.
Self, S., R. Gertisser, T. Thordarson, M. R. Rampino, and J. A. Wolff
(2004), Magma volume, volatile emissions, and stratospheric aerosols
from the 1815 eruption of Tambora, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L20608,
doi:10.1029/2004GL020925.
Signorelli, S., G. Vaggelli, C. Romano, and M. R. Carroll (2001), Volatile
element zonation in Campanian Ignimbrite magmas (Phlegrean Fields,
Italy): Evidence from the study of glass inclusions and matrix glasses,
Contrib. Mineral. Petrol., 140, 543–553, doi:10.1007/s004100000213.
Sparks, R. S. J. (1986), The dimensions and dynamics of volcanic eruption
columns, Bull. Volcanol., 48, 3–15, doi:10.1007/BF01073509.
Sparks, S., S. Self, J. Grattan, C. Oppenheimer, D. Pyle, and H. Rymer
(2005), Super-eruptions: Global effects and future threats, report of a
Geological Society of London Working Group, The Geol. Soc., London.
[Available at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/education/page2965.html.]
Suzuki, T. (1983), A theoretical model for dispersion of tephra, in Arc Volca-
nism: Physics and Tectonics, edited by D. Shimozuru and I. Yokoyama,
pp. 95–116, Terra Sci., Tokyo.
Timmreck, C., S. J. Lorenz, T. J. Crowley, S. Kinne, T. J. Raddatz, M. A.
Thomas, and J. H. Jungclaus (2009), Limited temperature response to
the very large AD 1258 volcanic eruption, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L21708, doi:10.1029/2009GL040083.
van Andel, T. H. (2002), The climate and landscape of the middle part of
the Weichselian glaciation in Europe: The Stage 3 Project, Quat. Res.,
57(1), 2–8, doi:10.1006/qres.2001.2294.
Woods, A. W., and S. M. Bower (1995), The decompression of volcanic
jets in a crater during explosive volcanic eruptions, Earth Planet. Sci.
Lett., 131(3–4), 189–205, doi:10.1016/0012-821X(95)00012-2.
Woods, A. W., and K. Wohletz (1991), Dimension and dynamics of
co-ignimbrite eruption columns, Nature, 350, 225–227, doi:10.1038/
350225a0.
Wulf, S., M. Kraml, A. Brauer, J. Keller, and J. F. W. Negendank (2004),
Tephrochronology of the 100 ka lacustrine sediment record of Lago
Grande di Monticchio (southern Italy), Quat. Int., 122(1), 7–30,
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2004.01.028.